Utah Redistricting Dispute Raises Constitutional Limits on Legislative Power

By Ed Wallace, Publisher/UtahStandardNews.com    Jan 1, 2026

INTRODUCTION: 

To my conservative friends: I am not opposing conservatism, I am applying it. Conservatism is not loyalty to a legislature, a party, or a political machine. It is loyalty to constitutional limits, the rule of law, and the idea that power is delegated and constrained.The Utah Constitution states that all political power is inherent in the people, and Article VI places initiative power inside the legislative structure itself. Proposition 4 did not strip authority from the Legislature, it imposed voter enacted statutory limits, which is itself a conservative check on the consolidation of power. which the Constitution allows, and courts are obligated to enforce. 

When the Legislature treated those limits as optional, judicial enforcement was not activism, it was separation of powers functioning as designed. Defending that enforcement is not left-wing, it is foundational. If voter-enacted law can be ignored in practice, then popular sovereignty becomes symbolic and constitutional government becomes selective. Conservatism means defending limits on power even when our side holds it, otherwise constitutional government becomes conditional.

I am taking this position precisely because I want conservatism to mean something more than winning. If we abandon limits when we hold power, we lose the moral authority to complain when someone else does the same.

My conclusion is fully consistent with both the U.S. Founders’ view of limited government and the explicit text of Utah’s Constitution, which is unusually clear on this point. 

In this article, I apply reason to our Constitution as written. There is no ambiguity. I didn’t know the depth of the hole I went down or where it would lead. A major uncovering was the response by our ‘leaders”. They exposed themselves. Their tactics, strategy, worldview, their attitude toward voters, all became visible in a way that even a simpleton like me can understand. I share it all along with iron-clad reasoning for my position. This is where the overreach becomes visible and where conservative readers either wake up or double down. – Ed Wallace

Table of Contents: Note – This document is also available as a downloadable PDF with linked sections and citations. Click here: https://republicstratagems.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/utah-redistricting-constitutional-limits.pdf

The Day Utah Lawmakers Forgot Their Limits and Treated the Constitution as Optional

What the Legislature Has Avoided Addressing

Constitutional Context

Binding Law, Not Advisory Preference

1. The Binding Statutory Standards Imposed by Prop 4

2. The Legislature and Commission Must Follow Ordered Criteria

3. The Statute Bans Partisan Favoritism

4. The Statute Requires Use of Objective Methods

5. Legislative Discretion Preserved, but Constrained, and Obligated to Explain Its Reasoning

6. Supporting Judicial Interpretation

Where to Read the Full Text

Summary

Anticipatory Q&A: “Commission Recommends, Legislature Decides”

SATIRE: Congratulations, Utah. We Solved Gerrymandering by Pretending the Law Didn’t Exist

The Day Utah Lawmakers Forgot Their Limits and Treated the Constitution as Optional

Editor’s Note: This commentary is informed by the full REPRO Source Report,particularly Section 8, published by The Republic Project, which documents Utah’s redistricting dispute through constitutional text, statutory law, judicial rulings, and verifiable public actions. The Source Report is written as a comprehensive reference record and is available for readers seeking detailed legal and historical context. Utah Standard News presents this article not as a partisan disagreement, but as a constitutional conflict over authority, restraint, and the rule of law. It serves as a commentary on the broader civic implications arising from those findings, and focuses on what legislative leaders did, and what they avoided addressing.

Utah’s redistricting fight is often described as a technical dispute over maps, judges, and procedure. That description is comforting, and it is wrong.

What this conflict actually reveals is an attitude problem. A governing class that has grown so accustomed to winning that it no longer recognizes limits on its own authority.

In 2018, Utah voters passed Proposition 4. Not to seize power, not to punish Republicans, and not to impose a progressive experiment, but to establish rules for redistricting grounded in fairness, transparency, and restraint. Those rules became law.

What followed is now part of the documented public record.

The Legislature rejected the advisory commission’s recommendations, which it was allowed to do. It then adopted its own map, which it was also allowed to do. The problem arose when the voter enacted statutory standards governing that process were treated as optional rather than binding.

Instead of complying, the Legislature repealed and replaced key provisions of Proposition 4 after litigation had already begun. Courts later found that this action substantially impaired the purpose of the voter approved law. That finding is not political. It is legal. And it matters.

Rather than address that finding directly, legislative leadership escalated. The Governor called a special session. Election timelines were altered. Public messaging hardened. The dispute was reframed not as a question of compliance with law, but as a threat to legislative supremacy.

Much of that framing came from House Speaker Mike Schultz, who repeatedly characterized the court’s actions as judicial overreach. What is notably absent from those statements is any engagement with the record itself. The Speaker does not address that Proposition 4 was binding law when redistricting occurred, that its statutory criteria were enforceable, or that the Legislature altered those criteria only after litigation began. He does not reconcile claims of exclusive legislative authority with a Constitution that explicitly places lawmaking power in the people as well as their representatives. The result is a narrative built on assertion rather than analysis, emphasizing institutional prerogative while sidestepping the legal findings that triggered judicial involvement in the first place.

Judicial review did not appear out of nowhere. It was triggered by legislative noncompliance. The court did not claim authority to govern Utah. It enforced statutes that were already in effect. When legislative remedies failed, the court adopted a provisional map to ensure lawful elections could proceed.

That response was treated not as a constitutional check, but as an insult.

Talk of judicial overreach replaced discussion of statutory standards. Accusations escalated. Even impeachment language surfaced. All of this because one branch of government insisted that another obey the law passed by the people.

The Legislature’s public posture has also avoided addressing several inconvenient facts. That Proposition 4 was binding statutory law at the time maps were drawn. That rejecting advisory recommendations was lawful, but ignoring statutory criteria was not. That repealing voter enacted standards after litigation began triggered heightened scrutiny. That courts found the repeal substantially impaired the initiative’s purpose. That judicial enforcement followed legislative noncompliance, not the other way around. That the remedial map was provisional and constrained, not a permanent transfer of authority. And that Utah’s Constitution explicitly states that all political power is inherent in the people, with initiative power placed inside the legislative structure itself.

These omissions are not rhetorical gaps. They are the legal core of the dispute.

This is not a radical interpretation. It is fully consistent with the constitutional tradition Utah inherited and chose to preserve. The U.S. Founders understood legislative power as delegated and conditional, never sovereign. Utah’s Constitution makes that principle unusually explicit. Article I, Section 2 states plainly that all political power is inherent in the people. Article VI, Section 1 places initiative power within the legislative framework itself. The Legislature is not displaced by this structure, but it is constrained by it, acting as a steward of delegated authority rather than its ultimate source.

Interpreting voter enacted limits as binding law, and judicial enforcement of those limits as legitimate, is not a departure from Federalist principles of popular sovereignty. It is their practical application.

The redistricting crisis is not about whether Republicans can win elections in Utah. They already do, overwhelmingly. It is about whether the people retain any meaningful ability to impose limits on those who govern them.

When power forgets its limits, the Constitution does not disappear. It waits. And eventually, it answers back.

What the Legislature Has Avoided Addressing

In public statements and official messaging, legislative leadership has consistently avoided or minimized the following documented facts:

– That Proposition 4 was binding statutory law when the Legislature drew its maps

– That the advisory commission’s recommendations were rejected lawfully, but the statutory criteria were not

– That the Legislature repealed and replaced voter enacted standards after litigation commenced, triggering heightened judicial scrutiny

– That courts found the repeal and replacement substantially impaired the purpose of the voter approved initiative

– That judicial enforcement was preceded by legislative noncompliance, not initiated as a policy choice

– That the remedial map was provisional and constrained, not a permanent transfer of authority

– That the Utah Constitution explicitly states all political power is inherent in the people

– That Article VI places initiative power inside the legislative structure, not outside it

These omissions matter. They are not rhetorical gaps, they are the legal core of the dispute. Ignoring them does not make them disappear. It simply reveals how uncomfortable the full constitutional context has become for those accustomed to governing without effective restraint.

Constitutional Context

This conclusion is fully consistent with both the U.S. Founders’ view of limited government and the explicit text of Utah’s Constitution. Utah’s constitutional framework is unusually clear on this point. The people retain legislative authority through initiative, and the Legislature acts as a steward of delegated power, not as a sovereign immune from constraint.

Article I, Section 2 of the Utah Constitution states that all political power is inherent in the people. Article VI, Section 1 places initiative power directly within the legislative structure itself, confirming that lawmaking authority in Utah is shared by design. This structure reflects core Federalist principles of popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and enforceable limits on government authority.

Interpreting voter enacted limits as binding law, and judicial enforcement of those limits as legitimate, is not a departure from constitutional conservatism. It is an application of it.

Proposition 4 imposed the following statutory standards and requirements on the Legislature:

– Independent Advisory Commission: The law created a seven member advisory commission to gather public input, hold hearings statewide, and submit recommended maps. The commission’s role was advisory, not controlling.

– Mandatory Redistricting Criteria: When drawing maps, the Legislature was required by statute to consider and apply specific criteria, including:

     – Contiguity: Districts must be geographically connected.
    – Compactness: Districts should not be oddly shaped without justification.
    – Preservation of Political Subdivisions: Counties, cities, and communities of interest should be kept intact where practicable.
    – Transparency: The process must be open, documented, and accessible to the public.
    – Partisan Fairness: Districts should not be drawn to unduly favor or disadvantage a political party.

– Good Faith Consideration Requirement: While the Legislature was not required to adopt the commission’s maps, it was required to meaningfully consider the recommendations and apply the statutory criteria in its own mapmaking.

– Limits on Legislative Evasion: The Legislature retained authority to amend or repeal Proposition 4, but courts have held that doing so in a way that substantially impairs the purpose of a voter approved initiative triggers heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Why this matters
The constitutional issue was not who draws the map. It was whether the Legislature complied with binding statutory standards enacted by the people while exercising that authority. Courts found that it did not, which is why enforcement followed.

 Binding Law, Not Advisory Preference

The Utah Constitution does give the Legislature authority to draw districts, but it does not give it authority to ignore binding law. Legislative authority in Utah is delegated and constrained, not absolute. When voters enact statutory limits through the initiative process, those limits carry the same legal force as statutes enacted by the Legislature itself, unless and until they are lawfully repealed or amended in a manner consistent with constitutional protections.

Proposition 4, adopted by Utah voters in 2018, imposed explicit statutory standards governing how redistricting authority must be exercised. While the initiative preserved legislative control over redistricting and established an advisory commission, it did not render the Legislature free to disregard the legal framework voters put in place. The binding nature of those requirements is stated directly in statute.

The statutory text of Proposition 4 (the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act) clearly spells out the requirements I’ve referenced. The act, enacted by initiative, imposed neutral criteria and obligations on the Legislature when it adopted maps, even if it rejected the commission’s recommendations. Utah Legislature+1

Here is what the statute actually says:

1. The Binding Statutory Standards Imposed by Prop 4

Here are the exact statutory excerpts from the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act that support the statement “When drawing maps, the Legislature was required by statute to consider and apply specific criteria.” These excerpts come from Proposition 4 as codified in the Utah Code Title 20A, Chapter 19 – the statute voters adopted in 2018 (and which the courts referenced in 2025 rulings).Utah Legislature

Under Utah Code § 20A-19-103, the law sets out the redistricting standards and requirements that both the commission and the Legislature must follow. While the statute is longer and detailed, its opening confirms that these standards apply to both bodies.

“This section establishes redistricting standards and requirements applicable to the Legislature and to the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission.”Justia Law

What this means in practice

Proposition 4 did more than create an advisory commission. It created binding legal standards that:

– applied to both the commission and the Legislature,

– required public explanation when adopting or rejecting plans, and

– prohibited partisan gerrymandering.

This statutory language formed the foundation for judicial review and the later judicial rulings that the Legislature’s maps did not comply with the law in effect at the time.Justia Law

2. The Legislature and Commission Must Follow Ordered Criteria

Under § 20A-19-103(3), the statute requires that districts be drawn according to ordered criteria, “to the greatest extent practicable”.  The Utah Supreme Court in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature interpreted the statute and specifically listed the kinds of neutral criteria the law imposed.

The Legislature and the Commission shall abide by the following Neutral Redistricting Standards to the greatest extent practicable and in the following core order of priority:

– Adherence to the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and achieving equal population among districts

– Minimizing the division of municipalities and counties across multiple districts (first priority to municipalities, second to counties)

– Creating districts that are geographically compact

– Creating districts that are contiguous and allow for the ease of transportation throughout the district;

– Preserving traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest

– Following natural and geographic features and boundaries; and

– Maximizing boundary agreement among different types of districtsUtah Legislature

– Prohibiting partisan gerrymandering (i.e., drawing districts to unduly favor or disfavor any incumbent, candidate, or political party). These criteria are codified in Utah Code § 20A-19-103(2)-(6), adopted as part of the initiative.Justia Law

These were not advisory preferences. They were mandatory statutory standards governing the exercise of redistricting authority.

The Court also cited statutory text requiring:

– The Legislature must vote to either adopt or reject the commission’s recommended plans; and

– If it rejects them and draws its own maps, the Legislature must still conform to the impartial criteria in the act and explain publicly why its plan better satisfies those standards.Justia Law

 Legislative Obligations After Rejecting Commission Maps
The statute requires that after the independent commission prepares and submits recommended maps, the Legislature must:

– Vote to adopt or reject the recommended plans; and

– If it rejects them, the Legislature must follow the same neutral criteria when it adopts its own districts. The statutory language states that even if the Legislature draws its own plan, that plan is still subject to the standards established by Proposition 4.Justia Law

Transparency and Public Explanation Requirements
Proposition 4 also required the Legislature, when rejecting the commission’s maps, to explain publicly the reasons for rejection and why its alternative better satisfies the neutral standards.Justia Law

Why This Matters

This statutory framework is what people mean when they say Proposition 4 “required the Legislature to consider and apply specific criteria.” It didn’t simply create an advisory group, it imposed binding standards on how districts must be drawn if the Legislature chose to reject the commission’s map. That legal obligation became central to later court rulings finding legislative action inconsistent with the law enacted by voters. Justia Law

3. The Statute Bans Partisan Favoritism

Still in § 20A-19-103(4)(a): Proposition 4 further imposed an explicit prohibition on partisan favoritism. 

“The Legislature and the Commission may not divide districts in a manner that purposefully or unduly favors or disfavors any incumbent elected official, candidate or prospective candidate for elective office, or any political party.”Utah Legislature

This provision directly contradicts claims that partisan outcomes were outside the scope of statutory review. The statute expressly prohibited purposeful partisan advantage. This is the neutral fairness requirement that undergirds prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering.

4. The Statute Requires Use of Objective Methods

The statute also required objective evaluation of compliance. Under § 20A-19-103(5):

“The Legislature and the Commission shall use judicial standards and the best available data and scientific and statistical methods … to assess whether a proposed redistricting plan abides by and conforms to the redistricting standards contained in this section.”  Utah Legislature

This language obligates both bodies to ground decisions on measurable analysis by using widely recognized analytical methods, not post hoc political justification.

5. Legislative Discretion Preserved, but Constrained, and Obligated to Explain Its Reasoning

Proposition 4 did not require the Legislature to adopt the commission’s recommended maps. Under § 20A-19-204, the Legislature retained authority to enact or reject those recommendations. However, rejection of the commission’s maps did not relieve the Legislature of its obligation to comply with the same statutory standards when drawing its own.

(2)(a) The Legislature shall either enact without change or amendment, other than technical corrections … or reject the Commission’s recommended plans.
(2)(b) The president of the Senate and speaker of the House may direct staff to prepare legislative review and fiscal notes on the Commission’s recommended plan.Justia Law

This provision shows that if the Legislature enacted a plan other than the commission’s, it was supposed to explain why and how its plan satisfied the same standards

6. Supporting Judicial Interpretation

In League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, the Utah Supreme Court summarized the statutory standards set forth in Proposition 4:

Proposition 4 required that district boundaries be drawn according to neutral redistricting standards, including: minimizing division of municipalities and counties, creating districts that are geographically compact and contiguous, preserving traditional communities of interest, following natural and geographic features and boundaries, and maximizing boundary agreement among different types of districts.Justia Law

This confirms that courts understood the statutory criteria as real, workable requirements.

When courts later enforced these provisions, they did not claim independent authority to redraw districts as a matter of policy. The legal dispute that followed was therefore not about who draws the map. It was about whether binding statutory standards enacted by the people constrained how that authority could be exercised. They enforced statutory requirements that were already in effect and that the Legislature was required to follow. Judicial enforcement arose only after legislative noncompliance and repeated failure to cure identified deficiencies. Characterizing that enforcement as judicial overreach requires disregarding the statutory text itself.

Disagreement with that enforcement is a legitimate subject of debate. But characterizing it as judicial overreach requires ignoring the statutory text itself.

The constitutional conflict in Utah’s redistricting dispute is therefore not about who draws the map. It is about whether voter enacted law imposes real limits on legislative power, or whether those limits become optional once they constrain those who govern.

Where to Read the Full Text

The statutory text of Proposition 4 (the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act) clearly spells out the criteria that were legally required when redrawing districts. The initiative is codified in Utah Code Title 20A, Chapter 19, You can read the full statutory language here:  

Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act (Proposition 4):https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter19/C20A-19_2018110620181201.pdf Utah Legislature

 This PDF includes all of the statutory language adopted by voters in 2018

Summary

Together, these statutory excerpts show that Proposition 4 did more than establish an advisory body. It required both the commission and the Legislature to follow clearly defined, ordered criteria, including compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and a prohibition on purposeful partisan bias whenever maps were drawn or adopted. Courts later interpreted and enforced those requirements as binding law.Utah Legislature

The Utah Constitution gives the Legislature authority to draw districts, but not authority to ignore binding law. Proposition 4 did not transfer redistricting power to the commission. It imposed statutory standards enacted by the people that explicitly apply to the Legislature as well as the commission. Utah Code § 20A-19-103 required districts to be drawn using ordered criteria, including compactness, contiguity, preservation of political subdivisions and communities of interest, objective evaluation methods, and a prohibition on purposeful partisan favoritism. The Legislature was free to reject the commission’s recommendations, but it was still legally required to comply with those standards when drawing its own maps. Courts did not seize redistricting authority. They enforced binding statutory law after legislative noncompliance.

Anticipatory Q&A: “Commission Recommends, Legislature Decides”

Q: Doesn’t the Utah Constitution give the Legislature exclusive authority to draw districts?
A: It gives the Legislature authority, not immunity from binding law. That authority is exercised within statutory and constitutional limits, including voter-enacted statutes.

Q: Didn’t Proposition 4 only create an advisory commission?
A: The commission was advisory, but the standards were binding. Utah Code § 20A-19-103 explicitly states that the redistricting standards apply to the Legislature as well as the commission.

Q: If the Legislature can reject the commission’s maps, how can courts say it violated the law?
A: Rejection of the commission’s recommendations was lawful. The violation arose from failure to comply with the statutory criteria when the Legislature adopted its own map.

Q: Where does the law say the Legislature must follow those criteria?
A: Utah Code § 20A-19-103 establishes ordered redistricting standards applicable to the Legislature, including compactness, contiguity, preservation of political subdivisions, objective evaluation methods, and a ban on purposeful partisan favoritism.

Q: Isn’t a court imposing a map judicial overreach?
A: Courts did not initiate redistricting. They enforced binding statutory law after legislative noncompliance and adopted a provisional remedy only when legislative fixes failed.

Q: So what is the real constitutional issue?
A: Whether voter-enacted statutory limits on legislative power are enforceable law, or merely advisory when they constrain those in power.

SATIRE: Congratulations, Utah. We Solved Gerrymandering by Pretending the Law Didn’t Exist

Utah lawmakers are furious. Not because they lost power, but because someone noticed how they were using it.

Voters passed a law. The Legislature ignored it. Courts enforced it. And somehow the judges are the villains.

Welcome to modern conservatism, where the Constitution is sacred until it interferes with control.

We are told redistricting authority is “exclusive.” That voter limits are “suggestions.” That judges enforcing statutes are tyrants. That separation of powers means the Legislature gets to decide when laws count.

This is impressive logic. Circular, self affirming, and completely untethered from constitutional text.

Let’s review the scandal. Citizens used the process the Constitution gives them. They imposed rules on power. Power resisted. Courts enforced. Power screamed “overreach.”

At no point did the Constitution vanish. It just became inconvenient.

The special session was not about urgency. It was about optics. The rhetoric was not about law. It was about dominance. And the outrage was not about principle. It was about the audacity of being told no.

What really rattled leadership was not a map. It was the reminder that they are stewards, not sovereigns.

The most revealing part is what was never addressed. That the law was binding. That it was ignored. That it was enforced. That this is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Instead, we got theater. Accusations. Even impeachment talk. All because the Constitution briefly remembered it had teeth.

Utah does not have a judicial overreach problem. It has a power allergy problem.

And the rash only appears when limits are applied.